|
| |
The election we 'had to have'? Scratching a little below the Surface
Responses
FROM: Jason McLeod 19 October 2004
This election was the first federal election I have voted in for over 10 years.
In the past I have refused to vote in federal and state elections and in the
1990s willingly served a week in a maximum security prison for doing so.
This time I voted not because I believe deep social change happens through the
ballot box but because Australia's involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq, and the treatment of refugee claimants became too much to stomach. But I
don't have any belief that this joke of democracy we have really works.
In contrast when I turned 18 the first thing I did was to enrol to vote - even
before having a drink! While I chose to vote this time, the comment that if you
don't vote nothing ever changes is a tired argument. The problem is that our
party political system is dsyfunctional. We need to re-invent democracy.
----------------
In one of my current jobs I work with local neighbourhoods in a regional centre
in Victoria to build community. My work involves two main things. Firstly, to
help bring together local service providers, the local council, and state govt
departments with local neighbourhoods to find joined up solutions to local
problems. The second element to my work is to support residents in local
neighbourhoods to develop 5- year neighbourhood plans. The hope is that these
plans will start to drive what happens in local neighbourhoods rather than
government and services driving the direction and character of the places where
people live.
As part of this work i have noticed a deep cynicism - not just when it comes to
federal politics but also local politics and local change processes. There is a
deep frustration and a despair that politicians are self-interested and
self-serving. Someone once said to me though, "cynicism is simply thinly veiled
hope." And this is the flip side of what I have observed: there is a deep hunger
to be involved in creating positive change. But this desire is for genuine
participation, not choosing someone to represent you and make decisions for you.
The challenge for those in authority is to open structural change so people can
participate, which means new and different processes. The challenge for
community is to learn to work with conflicting interests, lack of resources, and
the slow pace of change.
I don't believe people are apathetic. What I do believe is happening is a
combination of ignorance, isolation, and disempowerment. What is needed is the
desire to experiment at all levels of society with participation. This will
involve the long process of education. Change will involve building connections
with people and engaging in social movements focused on tangible direct change
rather than focused on asking politicians to do it for us. It is about taking
back power over all areas of lives and doing so within a social justice
framework
FROM: Virginia Calpotura 20 October 2004
As usual, it not only hits the nail on the head, but also challenges. I cannot
but rue the lack of substance and of spirit of -for want of a better word- the
civic education offered in schools. I think the rot starts there. In a way
religious education could go a very long way in engendering habits of critical
reflection and introducing ways of being change agents in an indifferent
society. Curriculum is undermined to a large extent as we all know by the
preoccupation with university places in senior schools - but surely some
creativity is possible in the social sciences so that there can be more history
(what a dearth) and a close link to civic participation (e.g. how to write to
news editors)...
FROM: Philip Huggins 21 October 2004
In response, Bishop Huggins sent the reflections that he shaped for his clergy
around the theme of "Church and Nation". Below is an extract:
3. "Within the gorges who knows the affairs of men and women?"
"Within the city who gazes at clouds and mountains?"
Wang Wei (8th Century Chinese poet)
A friend asked me about Dean Philip Jensen.
Then gave me a book of Chinese poetry: Ian Johnston Singing of Scented Grass.
The editor, Ian, an eminent neurosurgeon has 'retired' to South Bruny Island.
He writes: "Despite the great gulf in time and culture I find a resonance in the
writings of these poets, especially Wang Wei; the feelings of increasing
disaffection with public life and sadness at the strange mutations of the world,
leading to the wish to spend my life in relative solitude, immersed in the
beauties of nature, the writing of verse, and the study of Zen Buddhism."
4. Within Anglicare Australia, for the past two years, we have been running a
'Break the Cycle' campaign focused on ending intergenerational poverty.
Around the country, Anglicans have visited local MPs. We have lobbied in
Canberra. Prior to the election, with other Church welfare agencies, we have
developed a 'No Poverty Campaign'.
The 'Vote 1 No More Poverty' Campaign integrated with other campaigns like that
of Anglicare Victoria and the Brotherhood of St Lawrence - "This Election: Vote
for someone else".
What was the fruit of our efforts?
Certainly there was much more social expenditure in the promises of both major
parties.
But there was a lack of integration around clear social outcomes. It seemed like
a banal seduction.
Meanwhile the PM kept up the mantra on interest rates: [Even though it is under
his Government that housing prices (and mortgages) have risen disproportionately
to real wages]. Those with a mortgage are naturally anxious about employment and
interest rates.
Meanwhile, our young drag rising HEC's debt into a less accessible housing
market and an increasingly casualised work force.
Meanwhile, 800,000 children are still growing up in jobless families: affordable
housing will not be near employment centres for many of them.
Meanwhile, too, Family First has risen from nowhere on preference deals. A new
face of the Church in a society saturated with American culture.
On one visit to Canberra earlier in the year, a senior Labour shadow minister
said to me about our campaign, gesturing towards the Parliament: "the people who
live here, including the media, have no idea about the lives of those you are
representing".
Amidst the glamour and high wages of the National Parliament, who understands
the lives of those who turn up at our Food Centre, or who knock on our Vicarage
doors?
How else to explain the ridiculous complexity of all those endless policies
announced on the edge of the Election? And the failure to comprehend the level
of underlying anxiety in the community.
From: Norman Gale 21 October 2004
I am prompted to comment, if for no other reason than it makes me feel better.
But essentially the election result (to say nothing of the campaign) filled me
with despair. That Australian voters voted the way they did, in a way, reflects
a reasonably rational decision in the light of what they were offered, but that
the Howard caravan continues on unabated belittles us all.
Australia is fast becoming (already become) a place which no longer represents
the aspirations of people of humanity and passionate concern.
What can be done?
I agree that the opposition parties have jointly done little to offer a viable
alternative.
Is it the "people" who ache for truth and justice and a sense of fair play, who
must somehow respond?
Another three or four years wandering in the wilderness of economic rationalism
and the politics of fear is getting to be more than we can take.
FROM: Tess Berthelsen 22 October 2004
I agree we need to explore ways of getting people talking and listening. At the
moment I'm struggling with a church that has some very conservative thinkers
(some rather fundamentalist Christians). I have noticed that often they actually
don't want to hear when you offer further information - what is that about? Is
it a fear that you might find out something that could sow a seed of doubt or
undermine the beliefs you had always held as inviolable? I'm not sure but I have
begun to notice that if I suggest leading a discussion say on 'poverty' they
hedge around me. I'm thinking more public forums and lectures (especially in
church venues) might help.
FROM: John Clarke 22 October 2004
The Electorate
You comment that contrary to John Howard's "relaxed and comfortable Australia",
in fact there may be a widespread sense of insecurity or unease about the
future. I do not know to what extent this is true quantitatively, but there are
certainly many pointers toward such a state - for example, increased
prescription drug use, increased use (especially by young people) of mobile
'phones as a means of feeling connected and of reassurance. Contrary to Howard's
stated goal, there is also some evidence of a deliberate strategy in key centres
of influence to heighten this sense of anxiety and so create a context for
increasing restriction of personal freedom, and the need for "strong
government".
You cite a "treadmill of desperation" in sectors of society. Certainly, for
many reasons, our lives seem to be filled with coping with day to day issues,
leaving little time for deeper thought, and planning and control of our lives. I
am reminded of the anecdote "when you are up to your armpits in a crocodile
infested swamp you do not spend a lot of time planning a drainage system for the
future."
You state well the layers of complexity we face both nationally and
internationally. In the face of such complexity and time constraints there is
clear advantage in leaving it up to "those in charge" to fix the problems, or at
least, to make them "disappear". Again, governments, with their simple "spin" solutions to solving complex problems provide the opportunity for escape from
personal responsibility. Maybe this drove the election result.
Agents of Change
You comment for all those who were hoping for "a shift towards a more
far-sighted politics" it was a disappointing result. It would seem that the
state of the electorate is not currently conducive to such an aspiration. For
example, John Howard failed to enunciate his promised 10 year vision for the
future - he simply didn't need to, people weren't looking that far ahead.
In establishing any objective, a necessary starting point is a clear situation
analysis - "where are we now, what is our starting point?" It is clearly not in
the interest of those in power to assist with such an analysis. Nowhere is this
more apparent than in the politicisation of the public service.
A friend who works in the Vic. public service recently told me his job is to set
out all of the possible alternatives. When he has completed this task, he takes
it to his boss who deletes all of those alternatives that are not politically
acceptable. He then proceeds to work only on those remaining. Clearly it is only
the results for the "acceptable"set of solutions that ever see the light of
day.
Paradoxically, the absence of reliably disseminated public data encourages
protest or lobby groups who seek to provide other information, in as much as it
gives them reason to be. With limited access to mass media, dissemination of
their information is limited to small group meetings and such outlets as the
internet.
You comment "many would be more likely to respond positively, if they were
offered forums and institutions willing to engage their concerns and fears about
the future". I am not sure this is consistent with my observations. I am a
member of a number of small discussion / action groups that perennially show
promise but never actually reach a required critical mass for effective action.
(My view.) This is probably due to the largely disinterested or distracted state
of the electorate at large, and the too thin spreading of the time of the
limited number of people who are.
You also say "at the end of the day, any meaningful diagnosis cannot be the
preserve of experts, however clever or well meaning they may be. Sooner or later
the political community, or at least a significant cross-section of it, must
participate in the process". This may be desirable, but unless we have the
information only the experts can provide there is little basis for a process in
which to engage.
As has been pointed out, election campaigns do not provide an environment for
effective public engagement. Long-term considerations with many possibilities
based upon sound evidence are an anathema to convincing an electorate to act in
a party particular way within the confines of a limited budget and time.
It is only through a properly funded public service, and a responsible media,
that the public can participate between election campaigns rather than during
them. We do not seem likely to have these assets in the foreseeable future.
The Greens
You comment on "the inability of the Greens to stamp their authority as a new
emerging force in Australian politics". Notwithstanding "Family First's
unexpected success at the expense of the Greens, based in part on the bizarre
allocation of preferences in the Senate vote", the Greens were never really in a
position to stamp their authority on anything. At best we hoped (rather than
expected?) for 3 or 4 Senate seats and 1 or 2 lower house seats.
While the Greens have political party status they remain incredibly short of
real resources to effect change, and largely remain an environmental lobby group
and / or outlet for an issue protest vote for such issues as the Tampa. However,
this latter role remains an extremely important one, and must be continued.
At all elections, Greens strategists (such as they are ) confront a choice
between having influence on outcomes through negotiating / lobbying, or the
election of one or two individuals who may or may not be able to achieve similar
outcomes through a balance of power situation. (In the current situation it may
need eight or more Greens in the Senate to be effective - far too high a
realistic expectation.) It may be that in Tasmania the choice was to maximize a
forest outcome at the risk of a Senate seat. If this was the case, then in the
event, the game of bluff between the Greens and Labor terminated abruptly when
time ran out, and as a result things went badly wrong for both parties. In any
event, a good forest outcome could only be achieved through the election of a
Labor government, which did not happen. Such seem the risks of politics.
You say "as for the Greens, they signalled that when it came to issues of
environment, peace and justice, they were generally on the side of the angels".
Given a shortage of resources this is about all one can reasonably ask of the
Greens. If the major parties do not have the resources to establish and
communicate soundly based policies in a timely manner, then one can hardly
expect the Greens to do so. For the foreseeable future they can only present a
broad based view of an alternative way in which people may live together in the
world, and draw attention to clear areas of irresponsible action, such as clear
felling ancient forests for low value woodchip consumption.
"Alternative policies as distinct from an alternative wish list? More
importantly, what were the implications of these policies for our relations with
the United States, Indonesia, and the Islamic World, for the economy, and for
the prospects of economic growth? Most importantly, what was the intended
message for the 'anxious nation'?" I am afraid such expectations are simply
beyond current Green capability.
A Way Forward ?
It is hard to be positive in the current situation. As you have pointed out,
governments are in office rather than in control. Power and control lay
elsewhere. The concentration of media, and the masquerading of opinion as news
perpetuate a public danger.
Traditional centres of knowledge and endeavour such as schools and universities,
or a public service acting without "fear or favour" are not only being starved
of funds, but are deliberately undermined. Even these large institutions appear
unable to effectively respond to such attack. What can an individual hope to do?
In the face of such forces it is important not to "burn out". Groups and
channels need to be kept open and maintained in the hope of an opportunity
presenting itself for such small beginnings to take hold. Efforts such as your
"Our World In Crisis", and the "Greens Forum" need to be maintained, along with
the myriad of similarly struggling groups elsewhere in the community, even
though, there seems little opportunity for these groups to achieve a critical
mass for effective action.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because
of those who look on and do nothing". (Albert Einstein).
Editor's note: The writer is not a spokesperson for the Greens. These remarks
are his own views.
FROM: Don Stokes 24 October 2004
I have just come home from a social afternoon, where of course much of the
conversation centred around the election.
Interestingly, one observation agreed upon was that the result has signalled the
death of ideology (for the electorate) in Australia. 'Trots', Socialists,
Anarchists etc. are now less relevant. There is no longer a big picture or
commitment to any particular ideology- just the immediate, urgent and close.
Blue collar workers are as likely to vote Liberal as white collar.
Human nature has been the flaw in every political system throughout history, and
the only way forward is to appeal to the better side of it, which depends on
information and the progressive influence of peer groups.
Unfortunately my conversations are almost all with progressive people. I find
that the Liberal voters I have managed to speak to are reluctant to identify
themselves outside of their peers, and have either proudly stated self interest
as their prime concern or are so deeply influenced by commercial media that the
best I could hope for would be to gently coax them towards a first step on a
journey which will take years to arrive anywhere.
All emphasising the relevance of the OWIC project.
FROM: Kristian Camilleri 25 October 2004
I need to digest your election piece further, but one psychological metaphor
does spring to mind.
It seems to me that the way you represented the Howard government, with its
attentiveness and sensitivity to the underlying anxiety of the Australian
populace, resembles in many ways, the friend (or perhaps even the therapist) who
simply tells an ailing person what they want to hear. "I feel your pain. I can
make everything alright". This kind of second-rate pop-psychology is well known.
Far from confronting and diagnosing the cause of the underlying problems, such
an approach in the end merely sympathizes with the predicament of the patient.
It is however, at least an advance
upon the friend (or therapist) who never recognizes the condition in the first
place.
Perhaps this metaphor needs further thinking through - I do recognize it is
inadequate in a number of ways - but it may be a useful way of communicating the
message about the 'Australian condition'.
FROM: Vacy Vlazna 25 October 2004
I tend to agree that the underlying momentum in the electorate to vote back
Howard was insecurity - coupled with media-induced ignorance and self-interest.
As with the Tampa election the Liberal agenda was powerfully effective
fear-mongering because the media is the governments propaganda machine so people
have a miniscule chance of becoming informed voters (e.g. here in NSW the
'masses' read the Daily Telegraph which promotes, glorifies the US war in Iraq (
in the same ways that Wilfred Owen warned against in WWI) festers the
demonization of Arabs and racism and hero worships Howard. Ignorance keeps
people childish thus readers, as you say want security and childlike needs
fulfilled; a strong father that shooes away bogey men and makes Christmas all
year round. Simple. Readers are under the delusion that Howard is a strong
leader for kicking Saddam's butt. ( forgive them Father....) A fact- Most people
don't care about politics except for a flash moment during election
campaigning...then after the election slip back into a comfortable coma of
ignorance.
The war wasn't an issue because bluntly - Australia had no casualties.
And the USA can do no wrong - the average Australian is brainwashed by the
glamour and anaesthetized by the violence of American entertainment via TV and
film. The average person really believes that the US makes the world safe and
defends democracy; another childish view.
I heard Brian Loughnane's astute analysis of the labor and Liberal campaigns on
today's ABC Press Club. I agree that the choice of Latham as leader put labor
way behind. Even for me, I confess I was prepared to tolerate him rather than
Howard. He definitely doesn't inspire voter confidence. What was Labor thinking
in choosing him and keeping him on as leader !!! Also Labor, as Loughnane said,
hasn't put in the ground work over the last 8 years. The Libs, I concede, do
have 'focus and discipline' (albeit fascistic), Labor shillyshallies with
factional pettiness. Doesn't take a stand, etc etc pathetic like the State Libs
in NSW.
I joined the Greens this year because I find them principled, but they are weak
campaign strategists and wasted Andrew Wilkie in the safest Liberal seat in the
country.
Ultimately there is the bottom self-interest line....there is more 'apparent'
prosperity in Australia, apart from the phenomenal propagation of McMansions, in
older suburbs extensions to smaller houses are equally prolific - add glossy
furnishings, 4 wheel drives, cafe and restaurant lifestyles - things look good,
but this lifestyle is debt driven, and that is scary. Additionally the Bush/
Howard doctrine that our Arab neighbours want to covet our goods (the more we
have the more we have to lose) feeds the fear ,the racism, the rationalization
for an illegal war, the I'm-all-right -Jack-stuff-the-rest attitude.
Our education system also keeps people childlike, though 'childlike' is not fair
given 2 year old always ask WHY of everything around them... By end of primary
school the silent child is the acceptable child, by end of high school questions
are equated with being ignorant, and at Uni. individual thinking doesn't get
marks. Alas so few universities produce the progressive intelligentsia of yore.
FROM: Anne Lanyon 28 October 2004
1. You have articulated my general perception.
2. In metaphorical terms I think of we Aussies currently as a particular
type of family - those who voted for the coalition are the children who are
not yet ready to go out into the world, have underlying fears, like a secure
place, are happy not having to worry about the big issues, like someone they
can trust to take care of things so they can get on with playing sport,
getting more toys etc; John Howard is "Father knows best" who fits the bill.
3. I live in an affluent part of Sydney where house prices have risen
enormously. I have family who live in rural Australia. I have adult kids who
want to have a part of the great Australian dream. They have kids with all
the implications that brings. I am part of a parish. I am involved with
Catholic schools. As I listen to all these groups - my neighbours, local
citizens, parishioners, young people, old people, teachers, students etc
etc; as I read the local paper, travel on public transport, the above
general image is what I have formed.
4. I agree with your point about the gap that separates electioneering from
real life. However, your statement that many would respond if they were
offered forums and institutions willing to engage their fears etc. I think
herein lies the problem - people are too apathetic or too busy with their
individual lives to get involved - until they see that there is something in
it for them!
5. I think that your paper identifies the need for our maturity as a
nation - the need for analysis, reflection, responsibility, for starting to
live in the world. I wholeheartedly agree that the party system is a
problem.
6. I think that your key word is "engagement" - that is the challenge - how
to engage the majority?
FROM: David Tehr 1 November 2004
Your recent article "speaks to my condition", as we say in the Quaker world.
You ask in your article "What quality of discussion can be generated by any
election campaign, where the accent is on cosmetic presentation of leadership
styles, tedious point-scoring, the 30-second media grab, and costly and mindless
advertising?"
A few reforms I would be happy to see would be:
i) Abolish the Senate - although I did not vote for the Liberals in the past
election, I am at least happy that they have control of the Senate. Now no one
can blame anyone for holding up legislation and muddying the waters by altering
Bills etc. There are plenty of democracies across the world that work very well
under unicameral (single House) systems. I look forward to the day when
Australia can let go of this tradition.
ii) Much higher public funding of elections - Democracy is built upon the
premise of freedom of speech. However this must lead not simply to polemic
debate, but to a vigorous and healthy dialogue between differing opinions. It is
only then that some consensus - and even new, previously unthought of solutions
- can be found to move issues forward.
If we are to promote informed dialogue within the homes, streets, pubs, clubs
and educational organisations in our community, people need to be knowledgeable
about what the issues are and where our various political representatives and
their parties stand on these issues.
This remains difficult when the media is such a powerful gatekeeper of
information. Only when political parties have the ability to disseminate their
policies in ways other than 30 second advertisements will the public have a
chance of becoming better informed.
The approx $2 per primary vote presently paid is not nearly enough to give
parties the ability to fund the sort of advertising and, in particular, local
functions or events, that would be required to take politics out of the gutter
of the five-second sound bite and into a more civilised arena of discussion and
deliberation.
ii) Annual General Elections - nowhere in the world has yet implemented this
reform, first promulgated by the 19th century British Chartists. I am wondering
if you might consider reading my (rather poorly written and rambling) submission
on
http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=83&threadID=42462&messageID=48175#48175
You ask "... how well equipped the parties in question are to address the
underlying malaise, not to say ailment, that afflicts much of contemporary
Australia."
My belief is that this malaise / ailment comes from the fact that the old
"certainties" are gone - never to come back. We therefore need to celebrate that
the future is (constantly) ours to create - or at least attempt to create -
unencumbered by any past religious or cultural tradition.
A radical idea yes, but certainly one worth remaining in dialogue about -
continuously!
FROM: Kevin Dance 1 November 2004
Thanks for the opportunity to respond. I am presently living in exile in the
heart of Empire. I realise that I am removed from the immediacy of the climate
in Australia at present, but I can offer a few thoughts stimulated by your
analysis.
The explanations for the disappointing performance of the opposition parties in
the election all seem to be true, but, as you suggest, are not the root cause.
There would seem to be an increase in herd mentality vs. the loneliness of an
original idea. To challenge authority seems just too hard. Perhaps that's why we
have never had a civil war [a good thing] or any sort of revolution.
Howard, using the modelling of Jo Bjelke Peterson, seems to have an unerring
instinct for touching that 'fear of the other' nerve, to provoke a fearful
reaction. I also believe there is a resurgence of a slightly disguised form of
the cultural cringe. We believe that the big boys must be right.
We are basically decent folk who believe in a fair go and a fair share for all.
So it is easier not to have to wrestle with issues of deep inequality by not
having to see them and be confronted by the vision of these people in such need.
And perhaps there is another sleeper here. I sense that there is an unrecognized
or undiagnosed spiritual unease with all the stress on material success and 'aspirationalism'.
Even though facts patently fly in the face of such a conclusion, the very one
who leads us into harm's way, turns round and says: "See I am the strong one and
I will protect you".
For all our claims to boisterousness, to being our own person, to a certain
streak of larrikinism, I believe that we are an authority-dependent nation.
There is a notable but thin crust of independent thinkers and serious
researchers in our community. We have in our midst some of the finest analysts
and communicators anywhere in the world. But they do not counter the forces of
entropy and fear. For the rest of us, the need to be liked by the 'big boys'
seems to be too strong to buck. So we don't trust our own thinking.
> A sense of powerlessness seemed to overtake Australia when the massive
outpouring of protest against the imminent invasion of Iraq was made impotent
and was rolled over and simply ignored by the Government
> Another sign that appears to me from afar is the terrible failure of the
majority of Australians to speak out and to protest the recent sham of
negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the USA
It seems to me that part of the way forward is that some people, with skills of
analysis and also the ability to impart their knowledge, help to begin a
discourse whereby people can understand the dynamics of globalisation. We need
circles of dialogue to discover or rediscover that it possible to be a player in
the global village and still hold onto our identity. At present it seems to me
that majority Australia is suffering from learned helplessness.
I hope that the recent election fallout will provide an impetus for some
critical thinking and a recovery of belief in ourselves.
|
